TTAB Affirms Two Failure-to-Function Refusals: Marks Not Perceived as Source Indicators on Specimens of Use

We haven't had a failure-to-function refusal in a while, but here's a double-header. The Board affirmed refusals to register, on the Supplemental Register, the marks BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES and DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE, in standard character form, for educational services in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The Board found that the marks, as displayed on the specimens of use, would not be perceived as source indicators. In re International FIRST Committee Association, Serial Nos. 98849390 and 98849414 (September 28, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinions by Judge Robert Lavache).

The Board observed that "“the central question in determining whether Applicant’s proposed mark functions as a service mark is the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public (e.g., whether the term sought to be registered would be perceived as a mark identifying the source of the services)." "To make this determination we look to the specimens and other evidence of record showing how the designation is actually used in the marketplace."

Examining Attorney Joseph Greene maintained that "consumers will perceive the applied-for mark on the original specimen as merely identifying or referring to the statement of values, and not as the source of any services." The Board agreed.

When viewed in its entirety, [each] specimen is simply a statement of the values [or list of responsibilities] of Applicant’s organization FIRST Global. * * * The fact that the applied-for mark appears on a wall-mounted plaque, where such statements typically appear, reinforces this conclusion.

Furthermore, the examining attorney submitted various excerpts from third-party websites showing that it is common for organizations in various industries to publish "bills of responsibilities" and "declarations of interdependence," setting forth lists of values and responsibilities for their organizations.

The Board concluded that, as to each mark, "the only function the applied-for mark serves is to identify the type and nature of the statements displayed."

Applicant submitted substitute specimens, but they also merely listed the values and responsibilities of First Global, with no reference to any services being provided.

And so, the Board affirmed the refusals.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: "[T]the mere fact that the applied-for mark appears on the specimen does not make it a service mark."

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.